From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to schedule a blockchain split?
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:18:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110824161853.GA29981@ulyssis.org> (raw)
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:12:10AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> So, if we are going to have new releases that are incompatible with
> old clients why not do things right in the first place, implement or
> enable opcodes so the new bitcoin addresses can be small, and schedule
> a block chain split for N months from now.
What was the reason for disabling these opcodes in the first place? I can
understand wanting to prevent excessive signature-verification, or limitation
of arithmetic to a limited amount of bits, but completely disabling all
arithmetic beyond addition and subtraction, and all bitwise operations seems
very limiting to me. Thus, if we agree to do a future incompatible update,
i would vote to re-enable these, and maybe allow arithmetic up to 520 or
1024 bits numbers.
While we're at it, some additional opcodes could be useful. Either a custom
operator to do boolean evaluation, or a few more lowlevel operations. Given
the presence of bitwise operators, you could have scripts that process a
sequence of pubkey/signature pairs, build up a number in which each bit
corresponds to a valid signature, and then do some bitwise checks on this
number. I'd argue that a "count number of bits set in number" opcode would
be very useful for this.
In short: I'm in favor of re-enabling opcodes, and possibly adding an
OP_BITCOUNT operation.
--
Pieter
next reply other threads:[~2011-08-24 16:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-24 16:18 Pieter Wuille [this message]
2011-08-24 16:26 ` Luke-Jr
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-08-25 20:14 Pieter Wuille
2011-08-26 11:09 ` Mike Hearn
2011-08-26 21:30 ` Pieter Wuille
2011-08-24 15:12 Gavin Andresen
2011-08-24 15:17 ` Rick Wesson
2011-08-24 15:45 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-08-24 15:55 ` Rick Wesson
2011-08-24 16:05 ` Douglas Huff
2011-08-24 16:15 ` Luke-Jr
2011-08-24 16:46 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-08-24 17:03 ` Luke-Jr
2011-08-24 17:07 ` Rick Wesson
2011-08-24 17:19 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-08-24 17:40 ` Rick Wesson
2011-08-24 17:57 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-08-24 18:45 ` Jeff Garzik
2011-08-25 7:39 ` Michael Grønager
2011-08-25 17:18 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-08-26 10:50 ` Mike Hearn
2011-08-27 1:36 ` bgroff
2011-08-25 18:31 ` Gregory Maxwell
[not found] ` <20110825201026.GA21380@ulyssis.org>
2011-08-25 20:29 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-08-25 21:06 ` Pieter Wuille
2011-08-24 17:03 ` theymos
2011-08-24 17:47 ` bgroff
2011-08-24 19:05 ` Christian Decker
2011-08-24 20:29 ` Gregory Maxwell
2011-08-24 22:27 ` Douglas Huff
2011-08-25 21:30 ` Christian Decker
2011-08-26 11:42 ` Mike Hearn
2011-08-26 19:44 ` Gavin Andresen
2011-08-27 1:15 ` bgroff
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110824161853.GA29981@ulyssis.org \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox